Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2089 (KAR)

Shylaja R Hegde v. State Of Karnataka

2020-10-21

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The petitioner is before this court seeking for quashing of the order dated 30.10.2017 by virtue of which the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri took cognizance and issued process in C.C.No.113/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 177, 197, 198, 199, 200, 120(b)(2), 420, read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that reading of the complaint does not disclose any allegation made against the petitioners herein. The offence as such alleged is regarding the fabrication and forgery of certain documents towards which the petitioners are not party nor have the petitioners directly received any benefits. On these grounds, he submits that there is no offence made out against the petitioners. If at all any offence is made out that is as against the husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 who expired on 24.11.2014 and hence, complaint cannot be prosecuted. 3. Sri.K.Prasad Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand would submit that petitioners have earlier approached this Court seeking for quashing of the very same order of cognizance by filing Crl.P.No.7718/2017 wherein the petitioners herein were petitioner Nos.1 and 2 therein. In the said matter the petitioners have filed a memo seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the petition insofar as they are concerned seeking for liberty. However, this Court permitted for withdrawal specifically refusing liberty. In view of the same, Sri.K.Prasad Hegde, learned counsel submits that on this ground itself the above petition would have to be dismissed since having withdrawn the first petition and no liberty having been granted, the petitioners cannot once again file the present petition agitating the very same grounds and or challenging the very same order. He further submitted that the petitioners had challenged the order of cognizance in Crl.R.P.No.61/2018 before the District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru which came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.03.2020 and the said Court confirmed the cognizance taken against the petitioners, however, providing liberty to the petitioners to approach the trial Court under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., claiming for discharge. On these two grounds Sri.K.Prasad Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the above proceedings are not maintainable and ought to be dismissed. 4. On these two grounds Sri.K.Prasad Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the above proceedings are not maintainable and ought to be dismissed. 4. Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the report of Forensic Science Lab (FSL) has been received confirming that there is infact a forgery of the signature committed as alleged in the complaint and the same forms part of the record. 5. Heard Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned counsel for petitioners, Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri.K.Prasad Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the papers. 6. The dispute in the present matter is as regards the Oppige Patra said to have been executed in favour of the husband and father respectively of the petitioners under which certain rights of the properties were transferred in their favour. It is on the basis of the said document that certain amounts were received by the petitioners from the Kuduremukh Wildlife Division which is a Government authority. Though it is contended that the petitioners are not parties to the Oppige Patra, the petitioners are parties to another document wherein they derived benefits out of and as regards the said property, it cannot therefore, at this stage be categorically stated that the petitioners are not involved in the offences alleged. 7. Charge sheet has already been laid as regards offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 177, 197, 198, 199, 200, 120(b)(2) and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. This is the basis for taking cognizance by the Magistrate on 21.08.2020 which is the impugned order and the said charge sheet having been laid and being prima-facie allegations made against the petitioners, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are required to stand trial. The averments made in the petition are more in the nature of defense. The petitioners are always at liberty to place the said defense during the course of trial. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. 8. The observations made above are only for the purpose of considering the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court shall proceed with the matter or application for discharge if and when filed by the petitioners, without being influenced by the above observations.